4 ms·
Where are your references that this, or some similar methodology, isn't how the World Bank arrived at its figures? Don't you think they would have thought prett
by Wintamute 11y ago
Where are your references that this, or some similar methodology, isn't how the World Bank arrived at its figures? Don't you think they would have thought pretty seriously about what an objective measure for "extremely poor" is? Perhaps $1.90/day is a statistically valid proxy when thinking globally based on their methodology, perhaps it isn't ~ I don't know and I'm none the wiser from your comment. And where's your evidence that the numbers were "fudged"?
- ctdonath 11y agoYou're asking me to prove a negative in response to me asking for establishment of positive standards. Sure, the WB probably has some well thought out criteria - and I don't know where to find them, and have reason to believe most everyone else pontificating on the subject aren't sharing those criteria. I've not seen evidence ANYONE has worked out basic human needs to the point that anyone being given such satisfying resources can, and is, declared "not poor". Of course you're none the wiser from my comment. It was a question (admittedly not bluntly phrased as such): what objectively constitutes "poor"? Many in this thread decry the fudging of numbers in the discussion; I'd like something objective which can't really be fudged. ETA: following another posters' suggested link, seems the WB admittedly arrived at that $1.90/day number by averaging the declared poverty lines of low-GDP/capita countries. That's not the quantitative objective analysis I'm looking for.
- maxerickson 11y agoMost of the low GDP poverty lines were established using a cost of basic needs methodology. This looks like the same pdf that World Bank paywalls: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6645038.pdf http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6645038.pdf